Life In 19x19

if the professional doesn't notice and play something different in their game, what makes you think that An Youngil will be able to notice. I think the assumption is most of the 1/3 mistakes are mistakes that go theory hasn't evolved enough to understand yet.

I put 31-50; I was just at a workshop and Mr. Yang seemed to focus on fewer than ten moves, but we never made it to the end of any game and he was probably focusing only on really terrible moves. That number also seems reasonable compared to HKA's numbers (adjusted for rank difference).

The answer depends extremely heavily on the definition of wrong / bad (in the pro's own perception). Therefore it does not make sense to participate in this poll. Depending on the definition, the answer could be "smaller than 1" or "most moves".

Don't know how many bad moves I make, but I heard/read a "proverb" that even beginners do some pro moves. After all there are many situations that are really clear. Also when there is a "game winning" big capturing race it can be said that the person that knows how to capture these stones makes all moves "pro" because these are the best moves that will surely win him the game. It doesn't matter that those moves wouldn't most probably occur in a pro game, because the opponent would see his stones are doomed and so wouldn't make such a big dying group.

Gorim wrote:It doesn't matter that those moves wouldn't most probably occur in a pro game, because the opponent would see his stones are doomed and so wouldn't make such a big dying group.

Pros very frequently make big dying groups

Speedchase, I see what you're saying about moves that are right according to current go theory, but might be suboptimal. Still, I think that one in three is quite high. Some considerations:

Pros play near perfectly in the late endgame.
Just as with our games, there will be long sequences of forced moves. If you pick the wrong joseki, it may be that only one move is wrong--the rest are the best choice you can make given the wrong move.
Pros certainly play quite well in capturing races and tsumego.

RobertJasiek wrote:The answer depends extremely heavily on the definition of wrong / bad (in the pro's own perception). Therefore it does not make sense to participate in this poll. Depending on the definition, the answer could be "smaller than 1" or "most moves".

I think that this comment hits the point pretty accurately. People are referencing pro commentary on their games, which is cool, but isn't necessarily indicative of everything that is "bad" or "wrong" in one's game. A pro may comment only on things that he thinks need improvement for the given player's level. He might think, "Well, this guy is 1k, and a 1k should know this. He needs to know that this move is bad." There could be even moves that a pro would say are "good" in your game, because they are good for your level. But he might not play the same move in the same situation, because at the pro level it may be a bad move.

hyperpape wrote:Pros play near perfectly in the late endgame.

Evidence?

Pros certainly play quite well in capturing races

In principle everybody can.

Kirby wrote:

RobertJasiek wrote:The answer depends extremely heavily on the definition of wrong / bad (in the pro's own perception). Therefore it does not make sense to participate in this poll. Depending on the definition, the answer could be "smaller than 1" or "most moves".

I think that this comment hits the point pretty accurately. People are referencing pro commentary on their games, which is cool, but isn't necessarily indicative of everything that is "bad" or "wrong" in one's game. A pro may comment only on things that he thinks need improvement for the given player's level. He might think, "Well, this guy is 1k, and a 1k should know this. He needs to know that this move is bad." There could be even moves that a pro would say are "good" in your game, because they are good for your level. But he might not play the same move in the same situation, because at the pro level it may be a bad move.

I acknowledge what you are saying, but I can't agree with Robert's opinion.

Yes, a review might not be the best way to find this number because many things are left unsaid. And indeed, some moves might be good on our level but yet clearly suboptimal on theirs.

However, I can't agree with Robert because the definition of bad was left quite clear. Would a pro play this given move? Does he consider it an option or would he call it a mistake if it was another pro playing it? Even better, would a pro study group call this move a mistake, stating that there are options clearly better?

uPWarrior wrote:...Does he consider it an option or would he call it a mistake if it was another pro playing it? ...

I'm not sure that this part was mentioned earlier. I think that it makes the field for "bad" moves much wider than some other interpretations.

Namely, when a pro does a review for a kyu player, I'm pretty sure he doesn't often review pointing out pro-level mistakes.

RobertJasiek wrote:

hyperpape wrote:Pros play near perfectly in the late endgame.

Evidence?

I thought that while combinatorial game theorists (for instance) are able to come up with places where professionals miss the right play, it is not altogether easy or common. Moreover, many of those errors may be single stone errors, followed by the best play given the initial error.

Robert Jasiek wrote:

hyperpape wrote:Pros certainly play quite well in capturing races

In principle everybody can.

This doesn't hurt my point. I wasn't making a comparative point, just commenting on the number of professional mistakes we might see.

uPWarrior wrote:

Kirby wrote:

RobertJasiek wrote:The answer depends extremely heavily on the definition of wrong / bad (in the pro's own perception). Therefore it does not make sense to participate in this poll. Depending on the definition, the answer could be "smaller than 1" or "most moves".

I think that this comment hits the point pretty accurately. People are referencing pro commentary on their games, which is cool, but isn't necessarily indicative of everything that is "bad" or "wrong" in one's game. A pro may comment only on things that he thinks need improvement for the given player's level. He might think, "Well, this guy is 1k, and a 1k should know this. He needs to know that this move is bad." There could be even moves that a pro would say are "good" in your game, because they are good for your level. But he might not play the same move in the same situation, because at the pro level it may be a bad move.

I acknowledge what you are saying, but I can't agree with Robert's opinion.

Yes, a review might not be the best way to find this number because many things are left unsaid. And indeed, some moves might be good on our level but yet clearly suboptimal on theirs.

However, I can't agree with Robert because the definition of bad was left quite clear. Would a pro play this given move? Does he consider it an option or would he call it a mistake if it was another pro playing it? Even better, would a pro study group call this move a mistake, stating that there are options clearly better?

Would a pro play this given move?

The poll clearly says how many of your moves would a pro classify as bad. Let's take the classification that HKA's pro teacher used - bad, slack, good & great. There are degrees of bad and good moves. If you say that the definition of bad is asking would a pro play this then HKA's slack moves would be defined as bad and probably a number of his good moves. Likely, a pro would play so many different moves than we would that it would make the distinction of a truly bad move meaningless.

hyperpape wrote:I thought that while combinatorial game theorists (for instance) are able to come up with places where professionals miss the right play, it is not altogether easy or common.

It is not easy because proving correct endgame can be difficult!

It is not common because only scarcely a few theorists make research on played games.

Moreover, many of those errors may be single stone errors, followed by the best play given the initial error.

May or may not...

uPWarrior wrote:I can't agree with Robert because the definition of bad was left quite clear.

No. In your new post, cited below, you have increased clarity.

Would a pro play this given move? Does he consider it an option or would he call it a mistake if it was another pro playing it? Even better, would a pro study group call this move a mistake, stating that there are options clearly better?

This is still pretty ambiguous though. The more a pro or a pro study group or an amateur or an amateur study group studies a move the more likely it is recognised as mistake.

I saw bad to mean G-d would not play this move if he was randomly moved to this position in the game, of anything other than perfect play. That's why I put my number so high.